So you have zero evidence on one end of the scale, and all the rest of the evidence on the other end, and you're standing there dumbfounded and amazed at the fact that the scale didn't remain perfectly balanced. You stupid cunt...

Philosophical naturalism needs to prove the natural is all there is by at least offering a natural account for existence, not proving the supernatural means either the supernatural does not exist or that we lack the ability to prove it.

Without evidence to assert some claim about nature being able to cause existence you're up shit creek without a paddle.

So you have zero evidence on one end of the scale, and all the rest of the evidence on the other end, and you're standing there dumbfounded and amazed at the fact that the scale didn't remain perfectly balanced. You stupid cunt...

Philosophical naturalism needs to prove the natural is all there is by at least offering a natural account for existence...

No, it does not you stupid cunt.

(11-01-2015 01:06 PM)Brownshirt Wrote: ...not proving the supernatural means either the supernatural does not exist or that we lack the ability to prove it.

Which in the end means the same thing, it has ZERO impact on anything. So treating it's probability as anything other than ZERO is irrational.

(11-01-2015 01:06 PM)Brownshirt Wrote: Without evidence to assert some claim about nature being able to cause existence you're up shit creek without a paddle.

No, you stupid cunt. Existence simply is. In the same way that evolution need not explain the origins of life, philosophical naturalism need not explain the start of existence (if such a thing is even possible, existence may have always been). Philosophical naturalism only posits that there does not exist a supernatural because the natural is all that is evident. IF (and this is a monumentally huge IF) existence does have a beginning or a cause, who is to say that it was anything but natural? Once again, in light of the total lack of evidence for the existence of the supernatural, what would leads us to the conclusion that the supernatural is a more probable explanation than the natural? Does such a question even make sense? It certainly lacks any evidence, and is relegated to space of thought experiments and theoretical hypothesis.

Existence doesn't owe you a fucking explanation, and neither does philosophical naturalism. Now kindly piss off you stupid wanker.

(11-01-2015 01:06 PM)Brownshirt Wrote: Philosophical naturalism needs to prove the natural is all there is by at least offering a natural account for existence, not proving the supernatural means either the supernatural does not exist or that we lack the ability to prove it.

No it does not. Full stop.

Idiot.

Quote:Without evidence to assert some claim about nature being able to cause existence you're up shit creek without a paddle.

No we are not. Full stop.

Idiot.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.

Reading shit smeared graffiti in a public toilet would be more enlightening than your posts brownshart. Everybody you'll never convince him superman and the X-Men don't exist. This fucktard doesn't understand the concept of make believe with no evidence to support said fiction.